Pocket Ninja:See, here's the thing. I'm not much of a gamer, period. I don't do online gaming at all. There are only a few games that I enjoy playing for a long time, and those tend to be games that I can immerse myself in and play a little at a time, by myself, for my own amusement (Civilization, Skyrim, etc etc). Back in the day, SimCity was one of those games. And when I heard there was a new one coming out, I got mildly interested. Not ecstatic...I haven't thought about SimCity in years, after all, and didn't know a new one was coming out. But mildly interested. Like, "Huh. You know, maybe I'll download that from Amazon for $60. I enjoyed it before, it could be fun."

But then I found out that it forces me to play online, and that building a real city requires me to collaborate with other people. I don't want to. Why should I have to do that to enjoy a game I've always enjoyed playing by myself? Multiplayer should be an option, not a requirement.

I don't care if the game wants to check to make sure it has a valid license. Fark all that, it doesn't matter to me. But you're going to make me collaborate in a multi-player game? Fark you. I'll never buy that. And I can't believe I'm all that rare in feeling that way. Why the hell would EA turn off that entire segment of its potential audience?

My guess would be that EA truly believes that the only folks that play offline games are those that stole the game in the first place. If they didn't why would they mind proving that with a little bit of programming that connects the game to EA's DRM servers.

It's a load of shiat. Sure, put in a code that the game needs to play. After that, let me play when I want. If i want updates I'll connect, let you verify again if it's really needed, download the patch and away I go.

Teiritzamna:BafflerMeal: True. I don't care. The DMCA is a batshiat crazy piece of legislation. We're all felons several times a day in the eyes of the CJ system. I stopped caring about the letter of the law years ago and try to do what I agree with morally.

I think, from a professional standpoint, is that there are fundamental differences between whan an average person understands a license to be and what a corporate entity does. From the standpoint of a company, the DMCA is pretty easy to work around. The trick is, a company has lawyers who advise it on exactly how to comply, avoid the DMCA's provisions. For lay people, if they even know if its existence, it feels like a crazy ass law that tells them that they do not own things they think they do.

/Also the statute itself is poorly written on par with the Lanham act or CERCLA.//ok nothing is as bad as those two

I don't think there's anything wrong with you raising the issue of abstract ethics in the context of this discussion - ethics always matter. But, the issue having been raised - how do you feel about EA's refusal to give refunds to those who have bought the game, and cannot play it? In a purely ethical sense, I mean?

HeartBurnKid:I love this idea that megacorporations are now justified in screwing you because they tell you they'll screw you in a giant, obtuse document you'll only see once they've already screwed you.

I love how you think I'm justifying it when I'm explaining how reality currently works to you.

If you'd like to contest the terms of your EULA in court, you're going to have to find a way around mandatory binding arbitration. That means making mandatory binding arbitration illegal (unlikely) or getting your sim city EULA complains picked up by the Supreme Court.

Tommy Moo:Girion47: Yeah I have no interest in this game. Off to pirate it!

Just out of curiosity, is that even feasible? Has someone already hacked the source code and released a version that doesn't ping EAs servers for license permission?

No. And nobody has actually hacked Diablo III, either, although random ITGs claim to have. It is very likely that not only can it not be done, but that there is no way for these games to be "patched" by the developer to be playable offline - ever. When they shut the servers down to force you to buy their next P.O.S. , your game will be gone.

fluffy2097:HeartBurnKid: I love this idea that megacorporations are now justified in screwing you because they tell you they'll screw you in a giant, obtuse document you'll only see once they've already screwed you.

I love how you think I'm justifying it when I'm explaining how reality currently works to you.

If you'd like to contest the terms of your EULA in court, you're going to have to find a way around mandatory binding arbitration. That means making mandatory binding arbitration illegal (unlikely) or getting your sim city EULA complains picked up by the Supreme Court.

Let the buyer beware. Everyone but you is out to fark you.

So, I shouldn't report this to the Better Business Bureau because... ?

jso2897:Tommy Moo: Girion47: Yeah I have no interest in this game. Off to pirate it!

Just out of curiosity, is that even feasible? Has someone already hacked the source code and released a version that doesn't ping EAs servers for license permission?

No. And nobody has actually hacked Diablo III, either, although random ITGs claim to have. It is very likely that not only can it not be done, but that there is no way for these games to be "patched" by the developer to be playable offline - ever. When they shut the servers down to force you to buy their next P.O.S. , your game will be gone.

The developer patching Diablo 3 would be simple; they simply provide a local version of the server software for you to use. As for people hacking it, there's a number of projects in progress, and some of them actually look very promising. Go Google Diablo 3 Server Emulator.

SimCity would be far simpler, since it doesn't actually rely on the online connection for any of the game logic. Just patch out the bits like the global marketplace, and you're golden.

HeartBurnKid:jso2897: Tommy Moo: Girion47: Yeah I have no interest in this game. Off to pirate it!

Just out of curiosity, is that even feasible? Has someone already hacked the source code and released a version that doesn't ping EAs servers for license permission?

No. And nobody has actually hacked Diablo III, either, although random ITGs claim to have. It is very likely that not only can it not be done, but that there is no way for these games to be "patched" by the developer to be playable offline - ever. When they shut the servers down to force you to buy their next P.O.S. , your game will be gone.

The developer patching Diablo 3 would be simple; they simply provide a local version of the server software for you to use. As for people hacking it, there's a number of projects in progress, and some of them actually look very promising. Go Google Diablo 3 Server Emulator.

SimCity would be far simpler, since it doesn't actually rely on the online connection for any of the game logic. Just patch out the bits like the global marketplace, and you're golden.

I'll believe it when I see it. Those "projects" may look "promising" to you - to me, and a lot of other folks, they don't. You can hack a games code, but you cannot populate a server with content you do not have or possess the tools to produce.Now, I guess you are right that Blizzard could give me the software to set up my own VM server - and that would be OK, I guess, but it can't be described as a "patch", and would be a lot more hassle than just patching a regular game. And anyway - they won't do it. They'll try to move us on to their next iteration.

Like it or not - "sell it like I want it or I'll pirate it" is fast becoming an empty threat. The aphorism "Anything man can make, man can crack" is just that - an aphorism. And aphorisms are not always true.The only way to stop the making of games like this is to stop CONSUMING them - in any way, shape, or form.

JesusJuice: Well, maybe making it not be a pain in the ass to purchase and install would be a good start.

[rlv.zcache.ca image 400x400]Thanks, however, for being exactly the guy i was discussing. It helps when the hypo examples show up to make your point for you.

If it makes you feel better, I only pirate games I want to play but can't afford/find/want to ensure it will play on my machine before I waste money on it. It's purely selfish, and I really don't care. I can honestly say that with an exception of Starcraft II, I've ended up purchasing legitimate copies of all the games I've ever torrented. Starcraft II, though? Blizzard can eat shiat and die, I'll pay full price when they release the full game.

jso2897:Like it or not - "sell it like I want it or I'll pirate it" is fast becoming an empty threat. The aphorism "Anything man can make, man can crack" is just that - an aphorism. And aphorisms are not always true.The only way to stop the making of games like this is to stop CONSUMING them - in any way, shape, or form.

Well, if you're right, we'll see if the people saying that give in, or go without. Personally, I've long since stopped pirating; I've got a ton of games I've bought on Steam that I haven't even played yet, so if a publisher does something stupid, I just skip their game altogether and go play one of those instead.

Satanic_Hamster:EA is the devil and will burn in hell for their greatest sin; ruining Bioware.

You ain't farking kidding. I'd still like to find out whose mouth I need to shiat in for making KOTOR a MMO. Seriously, I want to know who they are, and I want my shiat in their mouth. Sure, I could take this shiat in a toilet by myself, far away from other people, but it's more fun to SHARE WITH PEOPLE! RIGHT!? RIGHT!?

HeartBurnKid:jso2897: Like it or not - "sell it like I want it or I'll pirate it" is fast becoming an empty threat. The aphorism "Anything man can make, man can crack" is just that - an aphorism. And aphorisms are not always true.The only way to stop the making of games like this is to stop CONSUMING them - in any way, shape, or form.

Well, if you're right, we'll see if the people saying that give in, or go without. Personally, I've long since stopped pirating; I've got a ton of games I've bought on Steam that I haven't even played yet, so if a publisher does something stupid, I just skip their game altogether and go play one of those instead.

Well, I am not going to rage about any of this. I bought DIII, and feel that I lucked out. My gaming experience with it has been satisfactory, and they haven't tried to jack me for extra money. So I think I will do what a smart man does when he lucks out - quit while I'm ahead. As it is, I won't be able to play it single player when they take the servers down, like I will DII when they take the servers down, or still can play the original Diablo.No more online only games for me. And I don't pirate games.Luckily, there are years worth of great games I've never played, and if I never buy a "new" game again, I'll be perfectly happy. I don't need the "latest thing" - I just like fun things. More and more, the new games are crap anyway - DRM or no DRM.

jso2897:Teiritzamna: BafflerMeal: True. I don't care. The DMCA is a batshiat crazy piece of legislation. We're all felons several times a day in the eyes of the CJ system. I stopped caring about the letter of the law years ago and try to do what I agree with morally.

I think, from a professional standpoint, is that there are fundamental differences between whan an average person understands a license to be and what a corporate entity does. From the standpoint of a company, the DMCA is pretty easy to work around. The trick is, a company has lawyers who advise it on exactly how to comply, avoid the DMCA's provisions. For lay people, if they even know if its existence, it feels like a crazy ass law that tells them that they do not own things they think they do.

/Also the statute itself is poorly written on par with the Lanham act or CERCLA.//ok nothing is as bad as those two

I don't think there's anything wrong with you raising the issue of abstract ethics in the context of this discussion - ethics always matter. But, the issue having been raised - how do you feel about EA's refusal to give refunds to those who have bought the game, and cannot play it? In a purely ethical sense, I mean?

Oh I totally agree that EA's behavior here is so farking atrocious such that they are only a few rungs below monsanto on the WTF, you suck scale. They are obviously quite morally/ethically culpable.

peewinkle:Pssssh. I've been boycotting EA ever since they pulled the plug on Motor World Online, the best racing game of all time.

I bought that game a month before they pulled the plug, after only two years of being online. The game was rendered useless. With EA's history, you would have to be out of your farking mind to buy a game that required a connection to their servers.

jso2897:HeartBurnKid: jso2897: Like it or not - "sell it like I want it or I'll pirate it" is fast becoming an empty threat. The aphorism "Anything man can make, man can crack" is just that - an aphorism. And aphorisms are not always true.The only way to stop the making of games like this is to stop CONSUMING them - in any way, shape, or form.

Well, if you're right, we'll see if the people saying that give in, or go without. Personally, I've long since stopped pirating; I've got a ton of games I've bought on Steam that I haven't even played yet, so if a publisher does something stupid, I just skip their game altogether and go play one of those instead.

Well, I am not going to rage about any of this. I bought DIII, and feel that I lucked out. My gaming experience with it has been satisfactory, and they haven't tried to jack me for extra money. So I think I will do what a smart man does when he lucks out - quit while I'm ahead. As it is, I won't be able to play it single player when they take the servers down, like I will DII when they take the servers down, or still can play the original Diablo.No more online only games for me. And I don't pirate games.Luckily, there are years worth of great games I've never played, and if I never buy a "new" game again, I'll be perfectly happy. I don't need the "latest thing" - I just like fun things. More and more, the new games are crap anyway - DRM or no DRM.

I can't tell if it's because I'm getting older or what, but I'm starting to feel this way. I'm not very into online multiplayer, so MMOs and games like CoD/GoW/Halo don't really do much for me. Great single-player is what I crave, either in the gameplay, the story, or both. Those titles have started to get kind of...few and far between. Rockstar and Bethesda keep me entertained, but now any new releases from them are far away. Luckily, Steam and GoG still have plenty of awesome sales on older computer games I never got around to playing when they came out. Scooped up the Total War Collection when it was on sale for $12 and that has been fantastic. None of my older computers and laptops could really handle any of those titles, so it was great to finally play them.

Pocket Ninja:See, here's the thing. I'm not much of a gamer, period. I don't do online gaming at all. There are only a few games that I enjoy playing for a long time, and those tend to be games that I can immerse myself in and play a little at a time, by myself, for my own amusement (Civilization, Skyrim, etc etc). Back in the day, SimCity was one of those games. And when I heard there was a new one coming out, I got mildly interested. Not ecstatic...I haven't thought about SimCity in years, after all, and didn't know a new one was coming out. But mildly interested. Like, "Huh. You know, maybe I'll download that from Amazon for $60. I enjoyed it before, it could be fun."

But then I found out that it forces me to play online, and that building a real city requires me to collaborate with other people. I don't want to. Why should I have to do that to enjoy a game I've always enjoyed playing by myself? Multiplayer should be an option, not a requirement.

I don't care if the game wants to check to make sure it has a valid license. Fark all that, it doesn't matter to me. But you're going to make me collaborate in a multi-player game? Fark you. I'll never buy that. And I can't believe I'm all that rare in feeling that way. Why the hell would EA turn off that entire segment of its potential audience?

I had a lot of bad feelings about the whole trilogy aspect of it too when I first heard, but honestly, Wings of Liberty has a hell of a good long campaign, and replay value is definitely there. I can't say with a straight face I feel completely ripped off there.

Dragonflew:peewinkle: Pssssh. I've been boycotting EA ever since they pulled the plug on Motor World Online, the best racing game of all time.

I bought that game a month before they pulled the plug, after only two years of being online. The game was rendered useless. With EA's history, you would have to be out of your farking mind to buy a game that required a connection to their servers.

I enjoyed Earth and Beyond. The nice thing about companies like EA pulling the plug on MMOs early is there is usually a big community effort to get a 3rd party server going. Most MMO's have this. Only notable exception I know of that ran into real problems was the first Final Fantasy MMO.

Dr. Goldshnoz:Dragonflew: peewinkle: Pssssh. I've been boycotting EA ever since they pulled the plug on Motor World Online, the best racing game of all time.

I bought that game a month before they pulled the plug, after only two years of being online. The game was rendered useless. With EA's history, you would have to be out of your farking mind to buy a game that required a connection to their servers.

I enjoyed Earth and Beyond. The nice thing about companies like EA pulling the plug on MMOs early is there is usually a big community effort to get a 3rd party server going. Most MMO's have this. Only notable exception I know of that ran into real problems was the first Final Fantasy MMO.

Like Luse's comment on Mech Warrior Online, there were many people begging EA for the server code so we could continue playing, unsupported, and the fans would take care of all costs. Of course, EA would not release it.

PainInTheASP:Pocket Ninja: See, here's the thing. I'm not much of a gamer, period. I don't do online gaming at all. There are only a few games that I enjoy playing for a long time, and those tend to be games that I can immerse myself in and play a little at a time, by myself, for my own amusement (Civilization, Skyrim, etc etc). Back in the day, SimCity was one of those games. And when I heard there was a new one coming out, I got mildly interested. Not ecstatic...I haven't thought about SimCity in years, after all, and didn't know a new one was coming out. But mildly interested. Like, "Huh. You know, maybe I'll download that from Amazon for $60. I enjoyed it before, it could be fun."

But then I found out that it forces me to play online, and that building a real city requires me to collaborate with other people. I don't want to. Why should I have to do that to enjoy a game I've always enjoyed playing by myself? Multiplayer should be an option, not a requirement.

I don't care if the game wants to check to make sure it has a valid license. Fark all that, it doesn't matter to me. But you're going to make me collaborate in a multi-player game? Fark you. I'll never buy that. And I can't believe I'm all that rare in feeling that way. Why the hell would EA turn off that entire segment of its potential audience?

A-farking-men.

Thirded. I treasure gaming as a solitary activity. I have a busy life in the real world, clogged with people and their drama. I get very little time alone. And when I feel the need to impress other people, I like to go out in the world and impress REAL people - not a bunch of shiat-mouthed twelve year olds on a server somewhere. There is absolutely no component of my self esteem that in any way revolves around being a little better than some other guy at pushing a series of buttons.

absolutely not surprising. they weren't making enough money off of it, why the hell should you get to enjoy it? luckily there are individuals in the world who love the challenge of a project like that to pad their resume/portfolio with.

Reading this thread all I can think about is the similiarity between gamers and meth heads. Meth heads complain about their dealers and the unfair prices they are charged and bad drugs they get and getting shot at etc but at the end of the day they pay. I have been a gamer since Space Invaders so believe me I am there with all of you in your rage against what gaming has become but can you not see that this was inevitable. There are entire courses in MBA schools devoted to how to take advantage of addicts. EA is proof you can do whatever you want and make billions a year without even breaking a sweat. The only power consumers have is to not consume. That is it. So what do we do? I hate Activision but I pay 14.95 a month for Wow cause I like to play. I am part of the problem.

HST's Dead Carcass:I'm torn now. Bioshock Infinite will be released soon. I was upset at how short of a game Bioshock 2 was, I finished it in one day on a weekend. Will this game be the same? I really want to buy it because I really want to play it, but how disappointed am I going to be in another short story $60 game? I'm all but convinced it's another sale buy, just like all other games.

If it helps, Bioshock Infinite is actually being made by the original Bioshock team, Bioshock 2 was made by entirely different people. I can't speak to how long it will actually be but Infinite has no multiplayer, and will be standing entirely on the merits of its campaign, so it better have a solid one.

walkingtall:Reading this thread all I can think about is the similiarity between gamers and meth heads. Meth heads complain about their dealers and the unfair prices they are charged and bad drugs they get and getting shot at etc but at the end of the day they pay. I have been a gamer since Space Invaders so believe me I am there with all of you in your rage against what gaming has become but can you not see that this was inevitable. There are entire courses in MBA schools devoted to how to take advantage of addicts. EA is proof you can do whatever you want and make billions a year without even breaking a sweat. The only power consumers have is to not consume. That is it. So what do we do? I hate Activision but I pay 14.95 a month for Wow cause I like to play. I am part of the problem.

This is why I am so glad I am not a serious, hardcore, l33t gamer - and why I laugh so hard when same express their contempt for those who are not. "Oh dear - you have insulted me because I have only spent a tiny fraction of the time you have sitting on a couch pressing buttons!....... Now - let's have that lunch money, Cuthbert."

Note in particular, THIS LINE:I must inform you that if you choose to dispute it, your account will be banned.

They are big fans of throwing that banhammer at EA when you annoy them, and the EA drone said, "ACCOUNT." That means your registration on the EA forums, and it means every single game you own on Origin. If the guy in that chat sessions disputes it, they won't just remove his ability to play the new Sim City, they are saying he won't be able to post on their forums, and he won't be able to play ANY OTHER EA GAME HE OWNS ON THAT ACCOUNT EVER AGAIN.

I bought Battlefield 3 on Origin, because I was a big whore for BF2, so I had no choice. Fortunately for me, BF3 has left me flat, so I've kicked that jones. I am going to try very hard to not purchase anything else on Origin, because I've found them to be rude and dismissive to their customers, and I don't want anything to do with them because of that. I don't think they have any other properties that I'm looking forward to, so that will help.

I don't know if it meets the definition of "older", but I've been playing Brutal Legend again. Great game, really underrated. I feel like a lot of people didn't know what to make of its RTS elements, and wrote it off solely on that. To be fair, the hack-and-slash bit is bog standard, and the RTS bit is all a little basic and fiddly, but it's the combination of the two, and that heavy metal aesthetic laid over the top, that really solidifies it as something unique. Plus, it has a really kick-ass soundtrack. Ironically enough, it's another game that got screwed by EA; when they published it, they did everything they could to hide the fact that it's half-RTS, which led to people getting surprised and pissed off by that, and trashing the game as a result. Doublefine has the rights back, though, and recently self-published a PC port (that's still a wee bit rough around the edges, but they're working on it).

Have not read the whole thread, so if this has been covered, mea culpa.

Why is it so many American companies are so worried about pirating/copyright/IP protections, yet they send all their physical medium to be manufactured in China. The same China that scoffs at the very idea of Intellectual Property?

traylor:TFA: Let me say this straight off: the DRM and online features in a game are part of a game

A-ha, so your first challenge in the game is to get through the DRM. THIS IS PART OF THE GAME.

Wait, I have an idea for a new game genre. There will be nothing in the games but dozens of DRM algorithms and the goal will be to get through all of them. Sounds good, no? First one wins, others can EABOD.

I never forgave EA for gutting Pandemic Studios.I liked the Mercenaries games and thought Mercs 2 had potential, but EA rushed the title and killed the series. I think that's the last EA game I have bought.

They will fark up whatever they want, what they won't do is stray from their hard-line stance. In their book, if they keep pushing this drm shiat eventually people will just swallow it (and they may be right).

For every informed tech consumer that expects better there are at least 2 people out there that will never put 2 and 2 together regarding what publisher(s) continually crank out games that are a pain in the ass. They will keep buying titles based off the title alone (thus the reasoning behind EA vacuuming up every dev house with a good name/franchise).

EA knows this, it's how they got on top. They have displayed an absolute stunning "fark off plebs" attitude towards their consumers and it doesn't hit their bottom line hard enough for them to change course.

So, nothing new here, fark EA. But more importantly, what the author and others here need to realize is that there is simply nothing to be gained by biatching at EA. They do not care. Not one bit.

Where this author's focus should be directed, as well as everyone elses, is to educate others that are too stupid and convince people not to buy from EA and instead focus on supporting the developers and publishers that manage to deliver (from concept up to and past release date) a buyer-friendly product worth the $40-$60 you are paying.

And on that note, I hope you all preorder everything that CD Projekt Red produces,

I hope when you next want to play an old game you go give gog.com $5 for it instead of digging out your old scratched CD or heading to piratebay (gog is owned by cpr)

...because if that company becomes a titan in this industry, THAT is something EA will take notice of, and might even convince them (and others) to adopt their far superior gamer-friendly ideology.

Not to mention cpr gets big enough to start vacuuming up beloved IPs of yesteryear we can start seeing some reboots worth spending money on... not these *farkyou* blatant greed grabs that EA cranks out with every living breath it takes.

/stop wasting breath on EA, there isn't such thing as bad publicity to these people//focus on the good, and support it with your $$

Think about that for a second. EA didn't realize that people who play SimCity like to play it for more than 15 or 20 minutes at a time. SimCity, possibly the game that *DEFINES* the phrase "addictive time suck". The game where every single version ever released, including the original, has ended up with scores of "So, I figured I'd load up the game for maybe a half-hour, and next thing I know, it's 3AM" stories. The game that has probably left more destroyed GPAs and undone housework in its wake than anything else.

The more EA talks, the more it's obvious that this whole thing was born of incompetence that is breathtaking in its magnitude.

They will fark up whatever they want, what they won't do is stray from their hard-line stance. In their book, if they keep pushing this drm shiat eventually people will just swallow it (and they may be right).

Unless you're saying they intended for the servers to suffer a massive blackout that prevents people from paying a game they just paid $60 for, I'm not sure what you mean by asserting that they're not incompetent. That just doesn't make any sense.

Oh, and to all of you dipshiats pulling the "THEN DNO'T BUY THE GAME U ENTITLED ENTITLEDS" horseshiat narrative:

They aren't buying the games. And 2012 ended up down a total of ten percent for both digital and physical sales. These are the worst numbers for the video game industry since the second crash thirty years ago. So stop with the narrative that console and computer video game players will continue to shovel the same shiat into their throats, because they're not, and they're doing it in large enough numbers that the results are going to be catastrophic.

Mike_LowELL:Oh, and to all of you dipshiats pulling the "THEN DNO'T BUY THE GAME U ENTITLED ENTITLEDS" horseshiat narrative:

[www.gamesetwatch.com image 450x450]

[www.gamesetwatch.com image 480x258]

They aren't buying the games. And 2012 ended up down a total of ten percent for both digital and physical sales. These are the worst numbers for the video game industry since the second crash thirty years ago. So stop with the narrative that console and computer video game players will continue to shovel the same shiat into their throats, because they're not, and they're doing it in large enough numbers that the results are going to be catastrophic.

Virtual Pariah:So when does the bleeding become enough for the industry to listen?

Unfortunately, probably not until EA, Activision, and/or Ubisoft go out of business. THQ was the warning shot, but I'm not sure anyone of importance recognizes it. (Yes, THQ was the victim of its own stupidity in many ways, but until recently, stupidity and/or evilness never affected the bottom line for any noticeable amount of time.)

Joe_diGriz:Virtual Pariah: So when does the bleeding become enough for the industry to listen?

Unfortunately, probably not until EA, Activision, and/or Ubisoft go out of business. THQ was the warning shot, but I'm not sure anyone of importance recognizes it. (Yes, THQ was the victim of its own stupidity in many ways, but until recently, stupidity and/or evilness never affected the bottom line for any noticeable amount of time.)

They will fark up whatever they want, what they won't do is stray from their hard-line stance. In their book, if they keep pushing this drm shiat eventually people will just swallow it (and they may be right).

Unless you're saying they intended for the servers to suffer a massive blackout that prevents people from paying a game they just paid $60 for, I'm not sure what you mean by asserting that they're not incompetent. That just doesn't make any sense.

Incompetence suggests they were simply unprepared for the launch fallout.

I'm telling you, they knew exactly what would happen. There was nothing incompetent about it.

Months before your new video game didn't work, they had meetings and detailed cost-benefit analysis that showed it would cost more money for them to have platforms in place to support the heavy user load than it would to just roll out a much lower cost solution.

Besides, from a pure cost-benefit standpoint... why spend the massive amount of money to KNOW you will be able to support a highballed guess at anticipated user load on release day? What if you spend too much and buy too many servers (which you most certainly will have to do)? That's money wasted in 6mos when user load is 40% of what it is now.

Just roll out the servers you know will support a conservative estimate of users, save yourself the money, and then use the stats of the customer's that can't play to make a calculated choice of how many more assets to deploy server-side.

You are buying the game either way, what difference does it make to them if you're inconvenienced for a couple/few weeks? Not enough customers are smart enough to know better and hit their bottom line on the next title.... sure people might catch on eventually, but if they haven't by now it's going to happen so far down the road that's someone elses problem.

Mind you I don't agree with any of this, but you're nuts if you don't think there aren't 2 dozen VPs at EA that make their living repeating this over and over again in meetings.

It's all about the bottom line, and no matter how many poor reviews they get on Amazon, they already made their money on this. They made all their development costs back before you all realized the servers weren't working. And when they release the next big title game, enough people will preorder to justify the continuation of this mindset.

You think their incompetent because they didn't give you a working game.

They don't exist to make you happy, they exist to take your money, and no matter how much biatching is done they keep succeeding in that department. I see no incompetence here on their part, only on that of gullible consumers and their expectations.

Go preorder their next game. I'm sure they'll learn all sorts of lessons and next time your game is going to work as awesomely as you expected. Next time for sure.

carnifex2005:Joe_diGriz: Virtual Pariah: So when does the bleeding become enough for the industry to listen?

Unfortunately, probably not until EA, Activision, and/or Ubisoft go out of business. THQ was the warning shot, but I'm not sure anyone of importance recognizes it. (Yes, THQ was the victim of its own stupidity in many ways, but until recently, stupidity and/or evilness never affected the bottom line for any noticeable amount of time.)

Ubisoft actually saw the light and scrapped always on DRM for their products late 2012.

Good! I actually like Ubisoft.

/I do wish they'd move away from this notion that Splinter Cell should be all Jason Bourne, though//I miss the good ol' days when you'd sneak into places and sneak out and no one got their heads smashed into a water fountain and the building didn't explode

Anybody mentioning the BBB needs to realize that the bigger a company is, the less the BBB will do to it. If they're Fortune 500, the BBB will bend over and kiss their asses. Only the little fish get policed.